Пометить диалог прочитанным

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not readOnly, not destructive, openWorld). The description adds a genuine behavioral detail beyond them: the chat.reply permission requirement. It does not disclose side effects such as whether the counterparty sees a read receipt or any rate limits, so the added context is useful but thin against an already-covered profile.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact clauses with the primary effect front-loaded ('Обнуляет счётчик непрочитанного'), followed by the prerequisite and sibling pointer. No filler; appropriately sized for a two-parameter action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a low-complexity mutation with fully documented parameters, a permission note, and a sibling pointer, the description is nearly sufficient. No output schema is needed for an action that returns no meaningful payload, and the safety profile is carried by annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both the 'dialog' identifier forms and the 'case' default-resolution behavior. The description adds nothing further about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: 'resets the unread counter' for a dialog, which is concrete and matches the title. It clearly conveys the effect, giving the agent little ambiguity about the outcome. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from all siblings (e.g., dialogs_update), though it does point to dialogs_history for the reading case.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Требует chat.reply' states a permission prerequisite, and 'историю читает dialogs_history' routes the agent to a specific sibling for the read path. However, it never states when to mark a dialog read versus not (e.g., after replying), so usage is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.